Tag: law

Welcome back to the long-awaited second part of the first part of the delayed Furry Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor! Once a month I take off my lawyer hat to put on my badger head and starting talking about some random legal issue or concept that has an effect on the furry fandom. Thankfully, Inkedfur.com has, you know, agreed to sponsor these things so I can act like I’m not totally a furry and only doing it for the sweet, sweet small amount of cash…but, we all know that’s a lie at this point.

So, my crazy creatures of all colors, including several that are most certainly not found in nature, let’s get started. When last I opened the doors to the rescue shelter and let you all run and romp, and do other shit (goddammit Bill, get the hose and spray those two) all over my legal lawn, we were talking about how the structure of non-profit corporations in general. As many furry conventions are actually registered and structured as non-profit corporations, I advised, they prevent one person from having a lot of fucking power. In short, what I said was “Even if they wear a lab coat and project an image of equal parts Machiavelli and Dr. Blofeld, they are still beholden to the determinations made by the furry equivalent of the a Board of Directors, which votes on matters affecting the corporation.” I believe I may have referred to the Chairman of the Board as being, essentially, the “Board’s Bitch.”

…I have not yet heard from Uncle Kage concerning this characterization, although I’ve heard the term has become fairly popular among members of the board itself.

But the Board of Directors isn’t the only shadowy organization shooting down the idea for the Public Pup Play Meet & Greet in the lobby of a hotel the convention is sharing with a World War II veterans’ reunion. There are other, more sinister, factors at play that keeps you from publicly being a pound puppy, and we all know how that was meant. So, today, for the second part, allow the lawyer in the badger mask to explain how one particularnon entity player can severely restrict the ability of a convention to do all the shit you think it should be doing as an attendee.

Welcome to the second installment of the Lawyers & Liquor series on the difference between the criminal and civil justice systems. I’m your host, the Boozy Barrister.

So last time we talked about the general differences between the criminal and civil justice systems. We talked about the difference between the burdens of proof necessary to hold someone responsible for an offense, the intention of the two systems, the nature of who is bringing a case, the punishments, and where the basis for criminal and civil law is found. That was all leading up to today’s discussion, which could possibly be useful for lawyers that have lost half of their brain, or may have been practicing in one area for so long that they’ve forgotten the differences when they switch fields.

So, today on Lawyers & Liquor, and without any further dilly dallying back and forth, we’re going to start talking about the concept of mens rea in both the civil and criminal systems.

Let’s start with a conversation today about mens rea and criminal law because, once fucking again my wonderful little shit stains, this shit is somewhat complex and I’m basically boiling down like three weeks of criminal law courses into a single goddamn post for you.

It’s May! Well, it’s halfway through May, and so in my infinite wisdom and general niceness, because I’m simply on heck of a guy who cares about those lowly law students, I’ve decided that I’m going to do a bit of a primer on a key difference in law that most people don’t understand. Hell, I’ve met lawyers that don’t really understand it. It’s because the difference that we’re talking about here is the difference between criminal culpability and civil liability, and the difference between what criminal intent and civil intent are.

Have I gone long enough without cussing that it won’t show up on the article previews in social media? Thank fuck. Alright, listen, if you’re a lawyer and you don’t already know this shit, hand in your law license. There is literally no reason for you to be practicing law. No reason, whatsoever. This is some basic ass shit, like, so basic we’re talking “pumpkin spice latte wearing ugg boots” levels of basic. There’s absolutely no reason a practicing attorney shouldn’t already be aware of this first-year-of-law-school bullshit, but it was requested by a reader that I dig into the difference between the two, and that’s what we’re going to do today: the difference between civil liability and criminal culpability.

But before I even start to talk about that, the difference in the state of mind needed and the types of shit that happens, we gotta make sure the non-lawyers out there understand the difference between criminal and civil. And that means, of course, that we’re going to end up doing a Lexplanation (you like that? I like it. It’s a portmanteau of lex, the Latin for law, and explanation, the English for “talking slowly and loudly to morons”).

So, I don’t know guys, go get some coffee or something and see what Popehat is up to? He’s normally got some decent shit on his site. I’ll be over here forcefeeding basic legal knowledge to muggles and walking malpractice suits.

Welcome to Inkedfur.com‘s Furry Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where it’s time to let out our inner technicolor zoo to run rampant over common sense and good taste. For one day one each month I, the Boozy Barrister, sprout the head of a badger and become the Boozy Badger to rant profanely about legal issues and news in the furry fandom. So snuggle up to your favorite, unconvicted-of-any-crime fursuiter, settle in, and let’s get this Dead Dog dance started with this month’s discussion of…death.

While March has seen a lot of death in the fandom, we’re going to be talking today about the death of the …what is this here…furry dating site called Pounced.org. A furry dating site? I thought that’s what Twitter was for. Huh. You learn something new every day, don’t you? I mean, with the number of furries showing their raging assholes on Twitter, I assumed…never mind. Let’s all turn into maw lovers and get right to the meat of the matter to discuss how the federal government swooped in to destroy the dating scene of those poor, lonely furs out there on their lonesome.

[Boozy: Today we welcome back Bill M. Hours, our erstwhile contributor, with another guest post to keep my goddamn queue from overflowing. Bill is an insurance defense attorney, a peon, a pleb, and an all around nice guy despite his work for the evil empire of Defense Attorneys. You can find him on Twitter at @billmhours.]

If someone you cared about asked for your opinion on whether they should play football; full contact, pads and helmets, grass-in-mouth football, what would you say?

Many of us today probably would caution against it. I know that when I run this scenario through my mind, my hypothetical self goes through various derivations of “fuck no” before deciding that phrases which aren’t broke don’t require fixing. I’d imagine that if one of my children ever asked me to let them play football, I’d most likely ask for a paternity test, but then also immediately lodge my opposition. In my case, this probably wouldn’t be too difficult to enforce because my spouse, while very interested in cooking, probably isn’t looking to be dealing with scrambled brains any time soon.

Perhaps I’ve tipped my hat too soon, in terms of expressing my opinion on the effects of football, but I don’t wish to make it sound like I hate ‘sportsball.’ In fact, where I come from, football in all its forms is a celebrated pastime. I even partook in the bashing of heads myself as a younger fellow (it was “Billy” back then), and I know from secondary experience that playing football can help young men in having an outlet to express hormonal emotions, and by helping them to develop discipline which can transfer into everyday life.